Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:
No extant field of technology or industry--including software and diagnostic methods, the two fields addressed by numerous amici--is wholly excluded from patent protection under that approach;
I don't follow your example. If a country doesn't recognise software patents, why would a company feel obliged to pay licence fees for software ideas such as h.264?
Eliminating software patents magically solves all our problems because then anyone could implement h.264, mp3 etc. without having to think about, or pay for, patent issues.
Yes, that's a fine idea. And if the government had to bear the cost of the innovation-encouraging-system, instead of converting it to bureaucracy and dumping it on developers, you can bet the level of patent office scrutiny to shoot up.
Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they promote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.
A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.
Video is, IMO, the area where software patents are doing the most harm, and the problem won't be solved by the anti-troll projects, and it won't be solved by raising examination standards. H.264 is covered by 900 patents. The only way to make it patent free is to abolish software patents.
The vast majority of us here want to abolish software patents. I'm posting informative links and pointing people to something they can do to contribute to this shared goal.
We've got *loads* of work to do, so it would be silly and pointless not to tell people about it.
I'm a bit behind on documenting this on en.swpat.org. If anyone can get it started, all help is welcome. In the mean time, here's the info I have on closely related topics :
Four around a round table would mean everyone facing each other. That makes it difficult to stare into empty space, which is very necessary. Looking directly at your screen for hours on end is dehumanising.
I also found that my eyes get tired when I work facing a wall. Maybe it's bad for your eyes to stay in very-short-distance focus mode for long periods. I solved this problem by putting a mirror behind my laptop. It's tilted slightly upwards so I can stare into it without staring at someone else.
provisions on software patents
on
ACTA Treaty Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:
201001 acta.pdf as text - this is the complete leak of the January text. It's still useful because it has each proposal tagged with the country that proposed it. These tags have been scrubbed in today's official version.
ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text - this is slightly incomplete, but in addition it contains comments from the EU negotiator.
temp storage and important people
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
> If this is the case then why is storage relevant?
Connectivity can never be guaranteed, so you either need storage or you have the thing discarding all data whenever the wifi connection is bad.
> An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses
Yes, but no one will ever do that just to attack someone. Unless you're a president of something, in which case you won't be walking around with just a camera around your neck for protection.
It's probably a very good thing that Bilski is being written while Stevens is still there. He was involved in all the previous subject matter cases, and the Supreme Court never said software was patentable in those. They also said a bunch of useful things like that math isn't patentable, and that putting instructions such as software onto a computer was a "mere clerical" act.
Your first para: Yes, they might throw out Bilski and cancel the CAFC's test (which throws out certain software patents) but that's *not* the same as saying that software patents are valid. They could just say that the CAFC went beyond the scope of this business method patent case in creating a test that applies also to software.
Second para: note that the "particular" is important. Being tied to a computer is not sufficient. Computers are general. A particular machine would the sewing robot I invented or rubber curing machine I invented.
The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.
The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.
I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.
Wow. I've never seen how a person who'd never encountered a bug before would describe their first one. I think you nailed it.
Like, displaying me a black screen with no sound or action when I want to view a video is odd and mostly pointless. Yeh, the "mostly" is just human kindness.
My interest is in finding prior art to prevent any company from using patents to jam up phone development for the years to come. If anyone else has examples from 1990 or before, please let me know.
There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.
The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow:-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.
If you're only concerned about border searches, then ACTA contains nothing that the USA doesn't do already. They're not the big problems of ACTA.
The big problems are liability for ISPs and people in the supply chain or transmission chain of software and music, the mandatory enforcement of DRM, and the enforcement of local laws by people in foreign countries.
It will lead to "rights holders" being able to control society through fear - each time people get organised (like the way the free software movement formed), the copyright and patent holders will have enough power over them, the ISPs, promoters, distributors, and service providers.
Slashdot Mirror
Her name is on the Bilski brief submitted by the Obama administration:
No extant field of technology or industry--including software and diagnostic methods, the two fields addressed by numerous amici--is wholly excluded from patent protection under that approach;
I don't follow your example. If a country doesn't recognise software patents, why would a company feel obliged to pay licence fees for software ideas such as h.264?
Eliminating software patents magically solves all our problems because then anyone could implement h.264, mp3 etc. without having to think about, or pay for, patent issues.
Yes, that's a fine idea. And if the government had to bear the cost of the innovation-encouraging-system, instead of converting it to bureaucracy and dumping it on developers, you can bet the level of patent office scrutiny to shoot up.
Great point.
So... ah, what evidence should I use?
Patent legislation in the USA is very unclear on questions about whether it should apply to software. That's why it's always ignored in the debate, with everyone focussing on the rulings from the CAFC and the Supreme Court. There is good grounds for saying the legislation excludes software ideas, since the Constitution only allows patents where they promote the progress of useful arts - and all the studies say software patents impede such progress.
A flat exclusion of software from patentability is one solution, and its the best one. Other possibilities include an exclusion of liability when using ideas for the purpose of compatibility. That wouldn't fix all problems, but it would fix the h.264 and other file format problems.
Related info on en.swpat.org:
Video is, IMO, the area where software patents are doing the most harm, and the problem won't be solved by the anti-troll projects, and it won't be solved by raising examination standards. H.264 is covered by 900 patents. The only way to make it patent free is to abolish software patents.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
The vast majority of us here want to abolish software patents. I'm posting informative links and pointing people to something they can do to contribute to this shared goal.
We've got *loads* of work to do, so it would be silly and pointless not to tell people about it.
I hope this doesn't overshadow the upcoming legislative changes regarding software patents. There's pretty much no activism on this right now:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
I should have also mentioned this page :
I'm a bit behind on documenting this on en.swpat.org. If anyone can get it started, all help is welcome. In the mean time, here's the info I have on closely related topics :
"Working" as in, you pull the chord and the ear moves?
Or "working" as in, you go for the chord, but the things runs off and starts multiplying and plotting the demise of your species?
Four around a round table would mean everyone facing each other. That makes it difficult to stare into empty space, which is very necessary. Looking directly at your screen for hours on end is dehumanising.
I also found that my eyes get tired when I work facing a wall. Maybe it's bad for your eyes to stay in very-short-distance focus mode for long periods. I solved this problem by putting a mirror behind my laptop. It's tilted slightly upwards so I can stare into it without staring at someone else.
I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:
For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:
> If this is the case then why is storage relevant?
Connectivity can never be guaranteed, so you either need storage or you have the thing discarding all data whenever the wifi connection is bad.
> An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses
Yes, but no one will ever do that just to attack someone. Unless you're a president of something, in which case you won't be walking around with just a camera around your neck for protection.
There's something funny about lamenting the resignation of an 89 year old judge because he's the only one that gets modern technology... :-)
It's probably a very good thing that Bilski is being written while Stevens is still there. He was involved in all the previous subject matter cases, and the Supreme Court never said software was patentable in those. They also said a bunch of useful things like that math isn't patentable, and that putting instructions such as software onto a computer was a "mere clerical" act.
Your first para: Yes, they might throw out Bilski and cancel the CAFC's test (which throws out certain software patents) but that's *not* the same as saying that software patents are valid. They could just say that the CAFC went beyond the scope of this business method patent case in creating a test that applies also to software.
Second para: note that the "particular" is important. Being tied to a computer is not sufficient. Computers are general. A particular machine would the sewing robot I invented or rubber curing machine I invented.
Third para: Ben Klemens' paper and a heap of studies show that swpats are bad for the economy.
I've been documenting the software patents situation for Theora here:
Adding information about On2's v8 codec would be very welcome.
The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.
The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.
I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson, Flook, Diehr. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.
> It's very odd and mostly pointless.
Wow. I've never seen how a person who'd never encountered a bug before would describe their first one. I think you nailed it.
Like, displaying me a black screen with no sound or action when I want to view a video is odd and mostly pointless. Yeh, the "mostly" is just human kindness.
This sort of thing was being done even back in 1985, and there are videos to demonstrating it:
My interest is in finding prior art to prevent any company from using patents to jam up phone development for the years to come. If anyone else has examples from 1990 or before, please let me know.
Sadly, with patent law, no one's ever sure.
If you want to solve that, the solution is indeed abolishing software patents.
In the mean time, V8 is our best chance to have video without patent problems.
There's no bigger software patent problem than the video situation, and Google's track record is good. They stockpile software patents, but I haven't found any cases of them using their patents aggressively. 29 patent holders are claiming to have a total of over 900 patent on h.264! There's just no way to invalidate them all.
The only way we can win this is by abolishing software patents (I'm working on it, but it won't happen tomorrow :-), convince everyone to move to Theora, or convince everyone to move to some super new format.
If you're only concerned about border searches, then ACTA contains nothing that the USA doesn't do already. They're not the big problems of ACTA.
The big problems are liability for ISPs and people in the supply chain or transmission chain of software and music, the mandatory enforcement of DRM, and the enforcement of local laws by people in foreign countries.
It will lead to "rights holders" being able to control society through fear - each time people get organised (like the way the free software movement formed), the copyright and patent holders will have enough power over them, the ISPs, promoters, distributors, and service providers.
Think of SCO, but this time SCO wins, multiple.